It’s probably not that surprising that some on the far Left were complaining that the Fox News Channel was going to host a debate between the Democratic presidential candidates in Nevada later this year. They were probably completely unaware that Fox News co-hosted (with the liberal Congressional Black Caucus Institute) two Democratic debates during the last presidential campaign.
What is surprising is that former Democratic Senator John Edwards, who smilingly participated in both of the Fox debates in 2003 (picture at left), decided that he could not participate in a debate hosted by Fox. “I said, ‘Why are we doing Fox?’ I said, ‘No, tell them no,’” Edwards told the Washington Post’s Dan Balz.
The idea that Fox runs biased debates is a bum rap. Four years ago, Brit Hume moderated the first debate on September 9, with questions posed by NPR’s Juan Williams, TheBeehive.org’s Farai Chideya, and BET’s Ed Gordon, three liberals The second debate on October 26 was hosted by Gwen Ifill (who later served as moderator of the vice presidential debate between Edwards and Dick Cheney), with questions asked by FNC reporter Carl Cameron and WJBK-TV anchor Huel Perkins.
There’s no record that any of the 2003 debate participants, who included very liberal candidates such as Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and the Reverend Al Sharpton, had any complaints of bias.
It is not exactly clear why Edwards, who was an enthusiastic participant in Fox’s debates in 2003, suddenly found it impossible to participate this year, but the Post noted that Edwards is running a much more stridently left-wing campaign this year than he did four years ago.
After Edwards backed out, the Nevada Democratic Party seized on the thin reed of a comment by Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes — a joke that basically mocked President Bush for supposedly being unable to distinguish Barack Obama from Osama bin Laden — to cancel the debate entirely.
The letter co-signed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the top Democrat in Nevada, oddly suggested that to let Democratic candidates debate on Fox’s airwave was to endorse Ailes joke, which they misinterpreted as a slight against Senator Obama (who said for his part he wasn’t bothered by the joke):
“Comments made last night by Fox News President Roger Ailes in reference to one of our presidential candidates went too far. We cannot, as good Democrats, put our party in a position to defend such comments. In light of his comments, we have concluded that it is not possible to hold a Presidential debate that will focus on our candidates and are therefore canceling our August debate. We take no pleasure in this, but it is the only course of action.”
Edwards and Reid, of course, are ratifying the quite illiberal campaign by left-wing activists to declare Fox “a right-wing misinformation network,” not a legitimate source of news.
Writing Saturday on the HuffingtonPost.com, Melinda Henneberger documented the high-fives lefties were giving each other after the debate’s cancellation:
Robert Greenwald, director of the movie Outfoxed, called the move a “victory for truth and journalism.” Some 280,000 people have viewed Greenwald’s new YouTube film "Fox Attacks: Obama" — located with the petition at www.FoxAttacks.com. "By standing up to Fox's right-wing smears," Greenwald said, "the patriotic grassroots, Netroots, Senator Reid, Senator Edwards, and the Nevada Democrats have all worked together to protect one of the most important elements of a free society - the press."And Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action, said he hoped the decision would "set a precedent within the party that Fox should be treated as a right-wing misinformation network, not legitimized as a neutral source of news."
Journalists who care about their profession should be appalled by such reasoning and repudiate the campaign to silence their brethren at Fox News, but the debate cancellation has so far been given relatively slight coverage from the other networks. And some of those journalists who work for other news organizations need to ask Senators Edwards and Reid whether or not they share the far Left’s belief that the Fox News Channel is nothing but a GOP mouthpiece.
It's impossible to imagine that the establishment media would be so silent if conservatives or Republicans were working to ostracize a liberal media outlet.
CNN, by the way, will host a Democatic debate in Nevada in November, so Democrats are choosing to bypass the top-rated cable news outlet in favor of one with less than half the audience.
—Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Edwards
March 12, 2007 - 16:31 ET by iveseenitallIf the same logic were applied to stations who are accused of a liberal bias there would be no debates at all. This is bogus. It's a calculated move by Edwards, and maybe a good one for him among the left, as Brit Hume has pointed out. Edwards is a first-rate con man who calculates every move he makes.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
The leftist party have cut of
March 12, 2007 - 16:45 ET by bigtimerThe leftist party have cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Idiots.
Edwards seems like the type w
March 12, 2007 - 16:54 ET by midnight cowboyEdwards seems like the type who had to sacrifice his lunch money to the bullies in grade school.The man is a flake. If the wind blows too hard Edwards will be airborne. He must have received many a towel snap in the locker room. His goal in life was to become a lawyer to get payback through the legal system to all the kids who picked on him.
Coulter might have been on to something in referrence to the faggot claim. Remember right after John F'n Kerry picked him as a running mate how the two were all touchy feely at ever campaign stop. They couldn't keep their hands off each other. Hmmmmmm.
"...Edwards will be airb
March 12, 2007 - 18:14 ET by Chris Norman"...Edwards will be airborne."
You think the Secret Service's code name for him is "Dust Bunny"?
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Chris...Dust Bunny! I love it
March 12, 2007 - 18:21 ET by bigtimerChris...
Dust Bunny! I love it!
Sure isn't going to be the Energizer now is it?
LOL!
Nah, the Energizer Bunny demo
March 12, 2007 - 18:39 ET by Chris NormanNah, the Energizer Bunny demonstrates self-propulsion, which is anathema to people like Edwards.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Now let me get this straigh
March 12, 2007 - 16:57 ET by MightyMouthNow let me get this straight, the Dems are mad at Roger Ailes of Fox because he made fun of George Bush, flubbing a line about Obama?
Is that pretty much it? Or am I missing something? Does this mean that the Dems hate Fox MORE than George Bush? I didn't think that was possible!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Remember, to the MSM, they be
March 12, 2007 - 17:43 ET by DesperadoRemember, to the MSM, they believe that Fox stole the election and gave it to Bush because they were the first to announce him the winner at 1am back in 2000.
As saying goes, "The Lef
March 12, 2007 - 16:58 ET by SMGalbraithAs saying goes, "The Left seeks out heretics, the Right seeks out converts."
Not always true, admittedly; but more often than not - as in this case - it is.
Edwards
March 12, 2007 - 17:32 ET by iveseenitallI knew a kid in college who would slip out of the men's room window to avoid paying his restaurant bill. Edwards reminds me of him, an oily fellow. Don't ever turn your back on guys like Edwards or that other unctuous sneak, Terry McAuliffe.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
isia...unctuous...I love it..
March 12, 2007 - 17:54 ET by bigtimerisia...
unctuous...
I love it...I leaned a new word!
Describes Edwards and McAuliffe perfectly!
...and some other people I know...
LOL!
Thanks!
You're welcome. Keep up your
March 12, 2007 - 18:37 ET by iveseenitallYou're welcome. Keep up your good work, Bigtimer.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
bt,To quote My Fair Lady, &qu
March 12, 2007 - 18:45 ET by Chris Normanbt,
To quote My Fair Lady, "Oozing charm from every pore, he oiled his way around the floor...".
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Chris,I'm chuckling and snick
March 12, 2007 - 18:51 ET by bigtimerChris,
I'm chuckling and snickering out loud with that comment...my cat's are looking at me funny, my dogs want out...lol!
Thanks to both you and isia!
bt,Glad to help out. Now, as
March 12, 2007 - 18:57 ET by Chris Normanbt,
Glad to help out. Now, as a reward, I'm going over to my brother's, where there are steaks on the grill, so I can claim my steak. Gotta love this Daylight Saving Time...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Chris,Steaks on the grill! I
March 12, 2007 - 19:04 ET by bigtimerChris,
Steaks on the grill! I wished!
Well, I got to get to frying up some oysters and spuds and onions pretty quick...have to wait for better weather for the use of my grill...oops...wait I mean GWing!
Have a great time Chris!
This campaign by Edwards has
March 12, 2007 - 17:50 ET by DesperadoThis campaign by Edwards has been brilliant so far. He's hired anti-Christian bloggers, went into hives over a bad joke from Coulter, and now he's boycotting Fox News, the largest audience in cable news.
Brilliant!
He must have hired Ned Lamonts campaign manager, who's motto was, "To heck with the general election, focus on winning the primary" By using the netroots ultra-liberals, this guy may just lift himself up to compete with Obama and Clinton in the primaries. After all, most conservative Democrats do not vote in primaries.
video of Edwards is disturbing
March 12, 2007 - 18:05 ET by RJThe youtube video of Edwards primping and prissing and licking his lips as if he were glossing his lipstick is disturbing. The word to describe him and all the Democrat candidates is shallow.
Yesterday, I said we had the possibility of electing the first female president, the first black president and the first metrosexual president. Can anyone pick a "best for America" from that unholy trio?
RJ,Two words...Absolutely N
March 12, 2007 - 18:11 ET by bigtimerRJ,
Two words...
Absolutely Not!
All three candidates you ment
March 12, 2007 - 18:36 ET by DesperadoAll three candidates you mention are laughable to our enemies. I could not see any of them trying to negotiate with N Korea or Iran. They would simply give our enemies anything they ask for and beg for their political lives.
Our enemies are afraid of W. which is why they hate him so much. Even though the MSM portrays him as intelligence challenged, our current enemy knows that W will launch an attack if he has to. This has kept them in check during all these years. If one of these three wins the election, we would be attacked non-stop because they know they could act with impunity.
After all, Edwards big war strategy would be to boycott the dang thing and then have a Manhattan while watching "Dancing with the Stars".
In the picture, Edwards looks
March 12, 2007 - 18:42 ET by Chris NormanIn the picture, Edwards looks like he's going for that Bobby Kennedy look. Since I never accepted the canonization of Bobby Kennedy, I won't say "he's no Bobby Kennedy"...
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
........"nuanced"......"botch
March 12, 2007 - 18:25 ET by gfrrman........"nuanced"......"botched joke"...... Thin skinned and spineless. Just consider all the vile crap that has been spewed by the left thrown at Bush and Co. and the Repub. Party. These people are just plain pathetically delusional.
This is what happens when you
March 12, 2007 - 18:40 ET by DesperadoThis is what happens when you live in an echo chamber, surrounded by YES men.
Edwards Press Release interpretted : "Fox News... derka derka, Cheney ... derka derka.. evil Karl Rove, derka derka Mohomad Jihad, Bush lied"
I will be the first to admit
March 12, 2007 - 18:50 ET by mostlymoderateI will be the first to admit that CBS, NBC, & ABC are biased toward the left. However, I also find FOX NEWS to be biased toward the right. I don't necessarily believe the Democrat's should cancel the debate; however, I do find FOX biased. Maybe C-Span should do the debates and stream them LIVE on the internet ;-)
mm, Just in time to dance you
March 12, 2007 - 18:55 ET by bigtimermm,
Just in time to dance your jig, as usual.
Get's old.
Well apparently there is a lo
March 12, 2007 - 18:57 ET by mostlymoderateWell apparently there is a lot of people that feel the same way. That's why FOX isn't getting a debate. I think that is a stupid decision; however, FOX is biased. Only a blinded idiot would disagree with that.
Of course it's stupid decisio
March 12, 2007 - 19:00 ET by Chris NormanOf course it's a stupid decision. Consider the people who made it.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
I agree. I think it makes th
March 12, 2007 - 19:03 ET by mostlymoderateI agree. I think it makes the Democrats look petty and like "panzies". I really can't believe they are being so wimpy. The only people this makes happy is Moveon.org. I think this has a lot more to do with their feelings of how the Bill Clinton interview went on FOX
Yeah you were here when I pos
March 12, 2007 - 19:08 ET by bigtimerYeah you were here when I posted that mm...along with others.
You had me fooled for awhile... back and forth you go, but my first impression of you was right quite awhile ago.
Carry on...and on...and on...
So you don't think FOX is bia
March 12, 2007 - 19:12 ET by mostlymoderateSo you don't think FOX is biased.
Didn't think so!
March 12, 2007 - 19:56 ET by mostlymoderateDidn't think so!
Do you?
March 12, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Free StinkerDo you?
If so, could you please cite an example?
Oh there's an entire LIST! W
March 12, 2007 - 20:01 ET by mostlymoderateOh there's an entire LIST! Why would I waste my time reciting what everybody else already knows. Checkout:
http://en.wikipedia....
Nearly all citations are ar
March 12, 2007 - 20:09 ET by Free StinkerNearly all citations are articles from FAIR, and MediaMatters - talk about biased...
Now, lets compare this to (off the top of my head, not Wiki-Talking Points)
Any of this ring a bell? What can you cite off the top of yout head about Foxnews? And I don't mean Liberal talking points.
Your hilarious! So I suppose
March 12, 2007 - 20:16 ET by mostlymoderateYour hilarious! So I suppose I should consider anything on Newsbusters as unreliable as well? Is that what you are saying? This IS a partisan website, right? Wow. I am so glad I had this conversation with you; it clears a lot of stuff up for me.
unmoderate - NB is a conser
March 12, 2007 - 20:21 ET by Dee Bunkunmoderate - NB is a conservative website and that is why their tag line at the top says "Exposing and Combating Liberal media bias". Fox has less conservative bias than the liberal bias on ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS,CNN and MSMBC
If you cannot tell the differ
March 12, 2007 - 20:22 ET by Free StinkerIf you cannot tell the difference between MediaMatter and Newsbusters, then there is no hope for you.
It's funny how you Liberals always miss it when we criticise Bush for failing to secure the border, or spending budget $'s like he was a Democrat.
Students:Let us observe the t
March 12, 2007 - 22:16 ET by Del DolemonteStudents:
Let us observe the typical behaviour of the new bird species, "Lefticus Kosus".
Behaviour trait #1: when directly challenged by your opponent, answer not with a cogent response, but with three questions in a row. Then insult the website contributors. Whenever you can't debate with real ideas, this trait will work EVERY time. Just ask Hitler's bud Goebbels.
Now, for your field trip assignment, go to the Faux News website, catalogue all of their news stories, and then tell us where they came from. Hint: they're mostly from the house organ of the DNC known as the Associated Press.
PS, there will be a quiz on this stuff later.
mostlyunmoderate -Guess you
March 12, 2007 - 20:09 ET by Dee Bunkmostlyunmoderate -Guess you missed the story about the editor at wikipedia that lied about his credentials. Wikipedia is hardley some definitive truth - they are at least as bias as FNC
edited - I have no idea what happened if anyone read this before my edit - the words were all mixed up.
mm,You are answering yourself
March 12, 2007 - 20:09 ET by bigtimermm,
You are answering yourself here...
....tells me all I need to know.
Oh yeah, right. Move On's hat
March 12, 2007 - 19:14 ET by Chris NormanOh yeah, right. Move On's hatred of Fox News is based merely on that interview? Please. The Left hates Fox because it's the one major media outlet they don't have a lock on. To suggest anything else is disingenuous. As for Fox being biased, any bias they have towards the right is more than offset by the number of liberal hosts and guests that appear there. Oh, forget it. I'm not going to be baited into this old sham argument.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Keep in mind, mm, that the pe
March 12, 2007 - 20:06 ET by dahliatraversKeep in mind, mm, that the person who lost it in that interview was the husband of Edwards' opponent. I just don't see Edwards getting terribly distressed at FOX for the way that interview ... devolved.
It is an event like this that
March 12, 2007 - 21:05 ET by mulerider24It is an event like this that makes me long for Newt to throw his hat into the ring. You could count on him to seize the humor in this pettiness by taking a shot across the bow and "boycotting" in jest the impending MSM debates. And, coincidentally, that jab would only be reported on Fox News and Newsbusters.
Gingrich has already been dis
March 12, 2007 - 22:31 ET by mostlymoderateGingrich has already been discredited when he was accused of hypocrisy and unethical behavior when he accepted an advance as part of a book deal, in light of his previous role in the investigation of Jim Wright. Plus, democrats have filed 84 ethics charges against Speaker Gingrich during his term, including claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes and using the GOPAC political action committee as a slush fund. Throw into the mix his affair with a woman during the Clinton affair and once again, Newt is discredited. I don't think too many people care what he does. I didn't even mention the claims of bigotry. Did I? Hope you can do better than Newt
mm,Blah blah blah...Troll.
March 12, 2007 - 22:41 ET by bigtimermm,
Blah blah blah...
Troll.
A troll is someone that leave
March 12, 2007 - 22:48 ET by mostlymoderateA troll is someone that leaves a message and leaves. I'm not going anywhere. Just letting you know that some of your ideas are "biased". Ironic that a website that is about "bias" can be so "biased" itself. Kinda reminds me of why so many ivy-leaguers are more liberal and moderate than conservative.
Shoo! Back to your bridge!
March 12, 2007 - 22:54 ET by Free StinkerActualy, a Troll is also someone who comes in with the intent to disrupt, and tries to do so with outrageous remarks.
You give your Trollosity away when you fail to give a serious answer to serious questions.
Now shoo! Back to your bridge. The tolls aren't getting collected.
Disrupt what, propaganda?
March 12, 2007 - 22:57 ET by mostlymoderateDisrupt what, propaganda?
mm, The shoe fits and you are
March 12, 2007 - 22:59 ET by bigtimermm,
The shoe fits and you are wearing it.
Troll.
Shoo!
March 12, 2007 - 23:01 ET by Free StinkerAgain, cite an example.
Oh yeah. Trolls don't do that. Shoo! Back to your bridge.
Sure, here is one from my old
March 12, 2007 - 23:22 ET by mostlymoderateSure, here is one from my old alma mater:
http://journalism.ny...
You can find the rest for yourself. Just do a Google of: fox news AND bias
(I know...I know...they are all biased...yup...blah blah blah)
I'm a little confused.Was G
March 12, 2007 - 22:52 ET by hydrodynDMI'm a little confused.
Was Gingrich also accused of obstruction of justice and perjury during the Clinton "affair".
I love that word - "affair". Makes it sound so quaint. Like the movie "Same Time Next Year"
No, but Newt was the one prea
March 12, 2007 - 22:55 ET by mostlymoderateNo, but Newt was the one preaching "morals" and "ethics" while screwing everything in site behind doors. Newt's downfall is his hypocrasy; no wonder the religious-right have leeched onto him--they are greatest hypocrits of all!
Perfect leftist talkin' point
March 12, 2007 - 22:57 ET by bigtimerPerfect leftist talkin' points you've posted about Newt mm.
How stupid do you think we are?
Go play on HuffnPuff.
Boy, if that is a talking poi
March 12, 2007 - 23:01 ET by mostlymoderateBoy, if that is a talking point then it sure does work! My gosh, add to that the facts that it is true and Newt doesn't have a prayer. Talking point: lol. Perfect response when you can't deny it or defend it. I thought you were better at this "big" timer.
mm,You were here the night I
March 12, 2007 - 23:08 ET by bigtimermm,
You were here the night I posted the same thing about Newt and why I didn't think he would make it because of the same list of old news garbage they would regenerate ad nauseum... .... again!
So do not act like you do not know what I am talking about.
I am done wasting my time with you.
Troll.
Btw...If Thompson runs you and your silly leftist hating ilk had better get your new orders from Soros central and study up on your new taking points.
Troll.
mostlymoderate, Ok, that wo
March 12, 2007 - 23:03 ET by hydrodynDMmostlymoderate,
Ok, that would be hypocritical.
Can you back up your claims about his moralizing with some quotes and references? I ask, since I've heard he's a pretty bright guy and I figure that he would have been smart enough not to take that angle if he was engaged in such nefarious activity.
I'm no Newt backer so it means nothing to me either way. Just wondering.
I am not going to waste time
March 12, 2007 - 22:58 ET by NL207I am not going to waste time and all of these accuassations of yours, but I will dispatch the first one.
Did Hillary not accept an even LARGER advance on her book than Gingrich received. Did Gingrich not wait until he was out of office to actually publish his book? And did not Gingrich eventualy accept only $1 advance? Did Hillary not publish her book as she was beginning her term of office?
Are you a hypocrite or a Hillary opponent?
Notice that in the end, Gingrich did not accept any $4.5 million advance book deal while he was still in office. In short, your accuasation is a lie.
bit of advice: When you quote the Wikipedia, you ought to credit the source, especially when it is disputed. This wikipedia article ought to be proof positive of what sort of biased trash it is as a source.
Now, don't we feel just a bit sheepish?
The difference between me and
March 12, 2007 - 23:06 ET by mostlymoderateThe difference between me and you is this: I admit that Hillary is scum of the Earth. I wouldn't vote for her in a minute. However, you et. al. support some very shady political figures and I really don't know why. Is the pool of conservative candidates so low that you have to choose an ex-champion like Newt? Now, do we feel a little bit sheepish? Maybe a blind partisan?? Kinda the same reason you support Bush/Cheney?
You mean there are squeaky-cl
March 12, 2007 - 23:20 ET by gfrrmanYou mean there are squeaky-clean politicians? I'd say that both sides of the candidates vying for POTUS are pretty weak. Who's the most qualified, squeaky-clean candidate out there...in YOUR opinion?
Honestly, I really like Thomp
March 12, 2007 - 23:25 ET by mostlymoderateHonestly, I really like Thompson because I am praying he acknowledges the immigration problem in America. As for the Demmies, the only candidate I see decent is Edwards (I know I know...he might be scum and liberal and all that; however, when compared to pretty boy Barrack and bobble-head Hillary I would have to choose him) However, choosing Edward's would be like having to drink your own urine if you were stranded on an island: he is the only choice on that side)
P.S. I have nothing against R
March 12, 2007 - 23:34 ET by mostlymoderateP.S. I have nothing against Romney either. If Thompson chooses not to run then I might support Romney. Oh, and Tancredo I understand has said a few things about immigration. Sorry, immigration is really the only issue that *really* effects my life in a negative way. Where I live, crime is horrid. But that is for another forum :-)
Isn't there a rule about re
March 12, 2007 - 23:37 ET by hydrodynDMIsn't there a rule about replying to your own posts?
I might be wrong about that
March 12, 2007 - 23:39 ET by hydrodynDMI might be wrong about that.
Not at all, just a lot going
March 12, 2007 - 23:43 ET by mostlymoderateNot at all, just a lot going on. Here is an example of Newt criticizing Tom Delay:
http://kutv.com/tops...
You can get a lot more of New
March 12, 2007 - 23:52 ET by mostlymoderateYou can get a lot more of Newts treatment of Clinton from this article:
http://www.cbsnews.c...
Ofcourse that is CBS, the biased ones
mostlymoderate, Still not s
March 13, 2007 - 00:04 ET by hydrodynDMmostlymoderate,
Still not seein' the hypocritical quotes from Newt in that article.
Can you point them out to me?
Here's a better one: go to t
March 13, 2007 - 00:20 ET by mostlymoderateHere's a better one: go to this link and every source you need is at the bottom of the page. Good Luck!
http://www.realchang...
mostlymoderate, Wow. Really
March 13, 2007 - 00:31 ET by hydrodynDMmostlymoderate,
Wow. Really scraping the bottle of the barrel with that link, aren't you?
Well, you put the time into finding it so I'll do you the credit of looking through it - but not tonight. It's already late for me.
But just word of advice. If you have to spend that much time looking for a link to a reference to back up something you type on here - maybe you shouldn't type it. But that's just me. I'm no one.
Thanks for the back and forth - later.
mostlymoderate, Ok, nice re
March 12, 2007 - 23:56 ET by hydrodynDMmostlymoderate,
Ok, nice ref. But not sure what it's in regard to. I asked for a ref to Newt being a hypocrite with regard to Clinton at the time of the Clinton impeachment. Maybe I'm missing something.
By the way. It's ok to acknowledge when you have asserted something you can't back up after the fact. In this forum, it's poison, but some here will give you credit for being honest.
If that doesn't apply here - my bad.
This is what is throwing me a
March 13, 2007 - 19:14 ET by dahliatraversThis is what is throwing me about the msm's reaction to the revelation of Newt's Clinton era affair. I am not a big fan of Newt but I do not remember his ever criticizing Clinton's womanizing. In fact, my recollection is that he carefully never said anything about it.
Bill Clinton did commit perjury and obstruct justice - and under a law that he signed onto the books. If Newt confined his comments to those matters, he is not guilty of hypocrisy.
I could go for either one of
March 12, 2007 - 23:42 ET by gfrrmanI could go for either one of them. Thompson just seems like a no nonsense guy. I've always liked the man. Yet, I still don't know enough about Romney though.
Edwards
March 12, 2007 - 23:37 ET by gfrrmanI think you need to investigate Edwards a whole lot more before you start saying such niceties of him. Experience? None. Trial lawyer....'nuf said. Wants to raise taxes enormously. Believes the GW crap, but cut down a whole forest to build a 30,000 sq. ft. mansion...hypocrite. He's Barack Obama, but a lighter shade of pale and an empty suit at that. Has the same Democrat talking points of 40 yrs ago......
I agree. Fox is common sense
March 12, 2007 - 19:03 ET by Clear thinkerI agree. Fox is common sense biased, and it's got to stop!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
"I said, 'no, tell them
March 12, 2007 - 20:08 ET by dahliatravers"I said, 'no, tell them no'."
buck buck buck buck buck buck buck buck BAAAWK!!
An ovious ploy by Edwards t
March 13, 2007 - 01:49 ET by gayconsvAn ovious ploy by Edwards to pander to his party's left. He's fighting for some way to be noticed amid the barackobillary press. A 'cry for help'.